IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WASHINGTON COUNTY

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WASHINGTON COUNTY"

Transcription

1 [Cite as Westfall v. Lemon, 2015-Ohio-384.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WASHINGTON COUNTY CANDY WESTFALL, et al., : : Case No. 14CA12 Plaintiffs-Appellants, : : vs. : DECISION AND JUDGMENT : ENTRY MARK LEMON, et al., : : Defendants-Appellees. : Released: 01/27/15 APPEARANCES: Sanford A. Meizlish, Barkan Meizlish Handelman Goodin DeRose Wentz, LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants. Joseph A. Butauski, Caborn & Butauski Co., LPA, Dublin, Ohio, for Appellees. McFarland, A.J. { 1} This is an appeal by Candy and Travis Westfall on behalf of their minor son, Joshua Westfall (hereinafter Appellant), of the trial court s summary judgment decision granted in favor of Appellees, Mark Lemon (hereinafter Appellee), and his employer, Matheny Motor Truck Company. On appeal, Appellants raise one assignment of error, contending that the trial court erred by entering summary judgment in favor Appellees when the record, construed in accordance with Civ.R. 56, reveals genuine issues of material fact and, as such, Appellees are not entitled to judgment as a matter

2 Washington App. No. 14CA12 2 of law. Because we conclude that Appellant's own actions were the proximate cause of his injuries and that even if Appellee was negligent in the operation of his vehicle, his negligence did not exceed the negligence of Appellant, we cannot conclude that the trial court erred in granting judgment, as a matter of law, in favor of Appellees. As such, Appellants sole assignment of error is overruled. Accordingly, the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees is affirmed. FACTS { 2} On August 19, 2010, Appellant, Joshua Westfall, age 14, was driving an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) across State Route 7 in Washington County as he was engaged in farming activities in connection with his family s farm store known as Hensler s Town and Country Market. Upon crossing the road from the west heading in an east-bound direction, Appellant was struck by a van driven by Appellee, Mark Lemon, and owned by Lemon s employer, Matheny Motor Truck Company, which was traveling in the northbound lane. The record indicates another vehicle was traveling in the southbound lane at the time, but was not involved in the collision. Appellant sustained serious injuries and has no memory of the event.

3 Washington App. No. 14CA12 3 { 3} On August 16, 2012, Appellant s parents, Travis and Candy Westfall, filed a complaint on behalf of their minor son, Joshua, alleging negligence on the part of Appellant and his employer, which primarily claimed that Appellant failed to maintain an appropriate level of speed and control over his vehicle and thereby caused the collision. Appellees responded by denying the allegations contained in the complaint and alleging that Appellant s own negligence was the cause of his injuries. The matter then proceeded through the discovery process and depositions were taken of Travis, Candy and Joshua Westfall, Mark Lemon and Steven Belyus, Appellants expert witness. { 4} Pertinent portions of these depositions will be discussed more fully below, however, it was the opinion of Belyus that Appellee was traveling between 62 and 72 m.p.h. in an area that had a posted speed limit of 55 m.p.h. Appellee testified that he was traveling at or below the posted speed limit and Appellees expert opined, based upon his review of the black box contained in the van in which Appellee was driving, that Appellee was driving approximately 53 m.p.h. just prior to impact. The record is clear that Appellant had a sight line of the northbound lane of approximately 675 feet, however, according to Appellant s own expert, Appellant pulled into Appellee s lane of travel when Appellee was about

4 Washington App. No. 14CA feet and two seconds away. Appellants expert further conceded that Appellee reacted appropriately when confronted with the sudden entry of Appellant into his path, by braking and swerving to miss Appellant. { 5} Appellees moved for summary judgment on July 31, 2013, essentially claiming that Appellee had a preferential right-of-way and that Appellant failed to yield that right-of-way, thereby causing the accident. Thus, Appellees argued Lemon was not negligent and that Appellant s injuries were solely caused by his own actions. Appellants filed a memorandum contra arguing that Appellee lost his preferential right-of-way when he operated his vehicle above the speed limit. Appellants further contended that questions regarding right-of-way, failure to yield and proximate cause precluded summary judgment. Over the objection of Appellants, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Appellees. { 6} In its decision, the trial court construed the evidence in favor of Appellants with regard to Appellee s vehicle speed and assumed arguendo Appellee was speeding. Even construing the evidence in a light most favorable to Appellants, the trial court determined that Appellant s negligence in failing to yield was the proximate cause of his injuries and that under comparative negligence principles, Appellants were barred from recovery, as no reasonable person could conclude that Appellee s negligence

5 Washington App. No. 14CA12 5 exceeded Appellant s own negligence. It is from this decision that Appellants now bring their timely appeal, setting forth one assignment of error for our review. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY ENTERING SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES WHEN (1) THE RECORD, WHEN CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CIV.R. 56, REVEALS GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT; AND (2) THE DEFENDANT-APPELLEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW. LEGAL ANALYSIS { 7} On appeal, Appellants challenge the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Appellees, claiming the existence of genuine issues of material fact with respect to issues of vehicle speed, right of way, proximate cause and comparative negligence, which should have precluded summary judgment. A review of the record reveals that the trial court applied comparative negligence principles to determine that Appellant's negligence exceeded the negligence of Appellee, and, as such, Appellant was barred from recovery. Having made that determination, the trial court determined Appellee was entitled to judgment, as a matter of law. { 8} We review the trial court's decision on a motion for summary judgment de novo. Smith v. McBride, 130 Ohio St.3d 51, 2011-Ohio-4674, 955 N.E.2d 954, 12. Accordingly, we afford no deference to the trial

6 Washington App. No. 14CA12 6 court's decision and independently review the record to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate. Snyder v. Stevens, 4th Dist. Scioto No. 12CA3465, 2012-Ohio-4120, 11. { 9} Under Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is appropriate only if (1) no genuine issue of any material fact remains, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made. DIRECTV, Inc. v. Levin, 128 Ohio St.3d 68, 2010-Ohio-6279, 941 N.E.2d 1187, 15; quoting State ex rel. Duncan v. Mentor City Council, 105 Ohio St.3d 372, 2005-Ohio-2163, 826 N.E.2d 832, 9. { 10} [A] party seeking summary judgment, on the ground that the nonmoving party cannot prove its case, bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on the essential element(s) of the nonmoving party's claims. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293, 662 N.E.2d 264 (1996). To meet this burden, the moving party must be able to specifically point to the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of

7 Washington App. No. 14CA12 7 evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, which affirmatively demonstrate that the nonmoving party has no evidence to support the nonmoving party's claims. Id.; Civ.R. 56(C). { 11} If the moving party fails to satisfy its initial burden, the motion for summary judgment must be denied. However, if the moving party has satisfied its initial burden, the nonmoving party then has a reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E) to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial * * *. Dresher at 293. { 12} The substantive law determines whether a genuine issue of material fact remains. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct (1986); Turner v. Turner, 67 Ohio St.3d 337, 340, 617 N.E.2d 1123 (1993); Perez v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 35 Ohio St.3d 215, , 520 N.E.2d 198 (1988). As the court stated in Anderson, supra: Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.

8 Washington App. No. 14CA12 8 In the case sub judice, to determine whether genuine issues of material fact remain disputed, we must examine the law of negligence and comparative negligence. { 13} Negligence occurs when the defendant fails to recognize that he owes a duty to protect the plaintiff from harm and that failure proximately resulted in injury or damage to the plaintiff. Di Gildo v. Caponi, 18 Ohio St.2d 125, 127, 247 N.E.2d 732 (1969); Kauffman v. First-Central Trust Co., 151 Ohio St. 298, 306, 85 N.E.2d 796 (1949). Negligence in motor vehicle cases, as in negligence cases generally, is the failure to exercise ordinary care so as to avoid injury to others. Ordinary care is that degree of care which persons of ordinary care and prudence are accustomed to observe under the same or similar circumstances, and the degree of care required of a motorist is always controlled by and depends upon the place, circumstances, conditions, and surroundings. Sickles v. Jackson Cty. Hwy. Dept., 196 Ohio App.3d 703, 2011-Ohio-6102, 965 N.E.2d 330; quoting McDonald v. Lanius, 3rd Dist. Marion No , 1993 WL , *2 (Oct. 28, 1993); quoting 7 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1978) , Automobiles and Other Vehicles, Section 312. { 14} The elements of a claim of negligence are: (1) the existence of a legal duty owing from the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's

9 Washington App. No. 14CA12 9 breach of that duty; and (3) injury to the plaintiff proximately resulting from such failure. Wallace v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 96 Ohio St.3d 266, Ohio-4210, 773 N.E.2d 1018, 22; citing Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 318, 544 N.E.2d 265 (1989). To recover, a plaintiff must also prove damages proximately resulting from the breach. Horsley v. Essman, 145 Ohio App.3d 438, 442, 763 N.E.2d 245; citing Jeffers v. Olexo, 43 Ohio St.3d 140, 142, 539 N.E.2d 614 (1989). { 15} In order to survive a properly supported motion for summary judgment in a negligence action, a plaintiff must establish that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether: (1) the defendant owed him a duty of care; (2) the defendant breached the duty of care; and (3) as a direct and proximate result of the defendant's breach, the plaintiff suffered injury. See Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners, 81 Ohio St.3d 677, 680, 693 N.E.2d 271 (1998); Jeffers v. Olexo, supra, at 142; Menifee v. Ohio Welding Products, Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75, 472 N.E.2d 707 (1984). If a defendant points to evidence illustrating that the plaintiff will be unable to prove any one of the foregoing elements, the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Feichtner v. Cleveland, 95 Ohio App.3d 388, 394, 642 N.E.2d 657 (1994); Keister v. Park Centre Lanes, 3 Ohio App.3d 19, 443 N.E.2d 532 (1981).

10 Washington App. No. 14CA12 10 { 16} The existence and conditions of a duty between two parties is determined by the nature of the relationship between them. Wallace at 23; citing Commerce & Industry Ins. Co. v. Toledo, 45 Ohio St.3d 96, 98, 543 N.E.2d 1188 (1989). The duty element of negligence poses a question of law for the court to determine. Id. at 22. [T]he existence of a duty depends upon the foreseeability of harm: if a reasonably prudent person would have anticipated that an injury was likely to result from a particular act, the court could find that the duty element of negligence is satisfied. Id. at 23; citing Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., supra, at 680; Commerce, supra, at 98; Menifee, supra, at 77. Duty has also been described as the court's expression of the sum total of those considerations of policy which lead the law to say that the particular plaintiff is entitled to protection. Wallace, supra, at 24; quoting Prosser, Law of Torts (4th ed.1971), Thus, there is no explicit formula for determining whether a duty exists and the existence of a duty is largely dependent upon the facts and circumstances present. See Payne v. Vance, 103 Ohio St. 59, 67, 133 N.E. 85 (1921). { 17} As this Court has previously noted: Under Ohio law, the driver of a motor vehicle proceeding over a through street in a lawful manner has the absolute right

11 Washington App. No. 14CA12 11 of way over a vehicle on an intersecting stop street, and the driver on the through street may ordinarily assume that such right of way will be respected and observed by the driver of the vehicle on the intersecting stop street. Earles v. Smith, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. 99CA28, 2000 WL , *4; quoting Timmons v. Russomano, 14 Ohio St.2d 124, 236 N.E.2d 665 (1968), paragraph one of the syllabus; See, also, Parton v. Weilnau, 169 Ohio St. 145, 156, 158 N.E.2d 719, 727 (1959). However, when a vehicle is not proceeding in a lawful manner, the driver of the vehicle loses the right of way. 1 Earles at *4; citing Morris v. Bloomgren, 127 Ohio St. 147, 187 N.E.2d 2, paragraph three of the syllabus (1933) (stating that when a vehicle is not proceeding in a lawful manner in approaching or crossing the intersection * * * such vehicle loses its preferential status ). [T]he law gives to the operator of a vehicle on the highway who has the right of way a shield, an absolute right to proceed uninterruptedly, but he forfeits the shield if he fails to proceed in a lawful manner. Earles at *4; quoting Vavrina v. Greczanik, 40 Ohio App.2d 129, 1 R.C defines right of way in pertinent part as follows: "(UU) Right-of-way means either of the following, as the context requires: (1) The right of a vehicle, streetcar, trackless trolley, or pedestrian to proceed uninterruptedly in a lawful manner in the direction in which it or the individual is moving in preference to another vehicle, streetcar, trackless trolley, or pedestrian approaching from a different direction into its or the individual's path[.]"

12 Washington App. No. 14CA , 318 N.E.2d 408 (1974); citing Beers v. Wills, 172 Ohio St. 569, 571, 179 N.E.2d 57 (1962). { 18} Further, although motorists have a duty to look out for the other motorists, motorists may rightfully assume the observance of the law and the exercise of ordinary care by others, and action by him in accordance with such assumption in the absence of notice or knowledge to the contrary is not negligence. Earles at *4 (internal citations omitted). It is important to note at this juncture that Appellant is alleged to have failed to yield. His own expert testified that, in addition to the speed of Appellee s vehicle, failure on the part of the juvenile operating the four wheeler to yield the right-of-way[] was the cause of the accident. R.C governs the entering of a roadway from any place other than another roadway and the duty to yield when doing so and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: "(A) The operator of a vehicle, streetcar, or trackless trolley about to enter or cross a highway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right of way to all traffic approaching on the roadway to be entered or crossed." { 19} Here, there was conflicting testimony regarding the speed in which Appellee was operating his vehicle leading up to the collision at issue. Appellee maintains that he was traveling within the posted speed limit of 55

13 Washington App. No. 14CA12 13 m.p.h. Appellees expert opined, based upon his review of the black box contained in Appellees vehicle, Appellee was traveling at or even just below 55 m.p.h. Appellant has no memory of the events on the day of the collision and could not testify regarding the speed of Appellees vehicle. Appellants expert opined that Appellee, based upon evidence gathered at the crash scene, was traveling between 62 and 72 m.p.h. Thus, a question of fact exists with respect to whether Appellee was proceeding lawfully in his lane of travel, or whether he was, in fact, speeding and thereby forfeited his right-of-way. Appellant contends that the existence of this question of fact should have precluded a grant of summary judgment in Appellee's favor. { 20} However, as set forth above, construing the evidence in favor of Appellant, as the non-moving party, and assuming arguendo that Appellee was speeding and therefore breached a duty owed to Appellant, issues of comparative negligence come into play in this case as we reach the proximate cause portion of the negligence analysis. R.C is Ohio's comparative negligence statute and it provides as follows: "The contributory fault of a person does not bar the person as plaintiff from recovering damages that have directly and proximately resulted from the tortious conduct of one or more other persons, if the contributory fault of the plaintiff was not

14 Washington App. No. 14CA12 14 greater than the combined tortious conduct of all other persons from whom the plaintiff seeks recovery in this action and of all other persons from whom the plaintiff does not seek recovery in this action. The court shall diminish any compensatory damages recoverable by the plaintiff by an amount that is proportionately equal to the percentage of tortious conduct of the plaintiff as determined pursuant to section of the Revised Code." { 21} Again, assuming for purposes of argument that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the duty and breach elements, we believe that no genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the proximate cause element. As we explain below, reasonable minds could only conclude that Appellant's negligence in failing to protect himself against a known risk, specifically, failing to yield to an oncoming vehicle while crossing a public roadway from one driveway to another driveway, and instead driving his ATV right into its path far exceeded Appellee's negligence. Thus, even if Appellee was negligent, under comparative negligence principles applied to the facts in the case sub judice, Appellant cannot recover. { 22} The rule of proximate cause requires that the injury sustained shall be the natural and probable consequence of the negligence alleged; that

15 Washington App. No. 14CA12 15 is, such consequence as under the surrounding circumstances of the particular case might, and should have been foreseen or anticipated by the wrongdoer as likely to follow his negligent act. Jeffers v. Olexo, 43 Ohio St.3d 140, 143, 539 N.E.2d 614 (1989); quoting Ross v. Nutt, 177 Ohio St. 113, 203 N.E. 118 (1964). [I]n order to establish proximate cause, foreseeability must be found. * * * If an injury is the natural and probable consequence of a negligent act and it is such as should have been foreseen in the light of all the attending circumstances, the injury is then the proximate result of the negligence * * *. Mussivand v. David, 45 Ohio St.3d 314, 321, 544 N.E.2d 265 (1989); quoting Mudrich v. Standard Oil Co., 153 Ohio St. 31, 39, 90 N.E.2d 859 (1950). The standard test for establishing causation is the sine qua non or but for test. Thus, a defendant's conduct is a cause of the event (or harm) if the event (or harm) would not have occurred but for that conduct; conversely, the defendant's conduct is not the cause of the event (or harm) if the event (or harm) would have occurred regardless of the conduct. Prosser & Keeton, Law of Torts (5th Ed.1984) 266. Anderson v. St. Francis St. George Hosp., Inc., 77 Ohio St.3d 82, 84-85, 671 N.E.2d 225 (1996). [L]egal responsibility must be limited to those causes which are so closely connected with the result and of such significance that the law is justified in imposing liability. Johnson v. Univ.

16 Washington App. No. 14CA12 16 Hosp. of Cleveland, 44 Ohio St.3d 49, 57, 540 N.E.2d 1370 (1989) quoting Prosser & Keeton, Law of Torts (5th Ed.1984) 264, Section 41; see, also, Hester v. Dwivedi, 89 Ohio St.3d 575, 733 N.E.2d 1161 (2000). { 23} Ordinarily, proximate cause is a question of fact for the jury. Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282, 288, 423 N.E.2d 467 (1981); citing Clinger v. Duncan, 166 Ohio St. 216, 141 N.E.2d 156 (1957). However, where no facts are alleged justifying any reasonable inference that the acts or failure of the defendant constitute the proximate cause of the injury, there is nothing for the jury [to decide], and, as a matter of law, judgment must be given for the defendant. Kemerer v. Antwerp Bd. of Edn., 105 Ohio App.3d 792, 796, 664 N.E.2d 1380 (1995); quoting Case v. Miami Chevrolet Co., 38 Ohio App. 41, 45-46, 175 N.E.2d 224 (1930); Vermett v. Fred Christen & Sons Co., 138 Ohio App.3d 586, 612, 741 N.E.2d 954 (6th Dist.2000) ( While proximate cause is often a jury question, summary judgment is proper on this issue when appellant has failed to meet his burden to produce evidence to challenge unfavorable evidence already in the record. ). Further, even if Appellee was negligent per se, in operating his vehicle at an unreasonable rate of speed, [n]egligence per se does not equal liability per se. Simply because the law may presume negligence from a person's violation of a statute * * * does not mean that the law presumes

17 Washington App. No. 14CA12 17 that such negligence was the proximate cause of the harm inflicted. Barnett v. Combs, 4th Dist. Ross No. 1268, 1986 WL 15209, *3 (Dec. 29, 1986); quoting Merchants Mutual Ins. Co. v. Baker, 15 Ohio St.3d 316, 473 N.E.2d 827 (1984). This is especially applicable when, as here, Appellant can also be viewed as being negligent per se. { 24} Like the trial court, we do not believe that any reasonable person could conclude that Appellant's injuries proximately resulted from Appellee s alleged speeding. Rather, we find the proximate cause of Appellant's injuries to be his own negligence in pulling directly into the path of Appellant's vehicle. Of importance, although Appellant has no memory of the events relating to the collision, both he and his father, Travis, testified in their depositions that regardless of the speed of an oncoming vehicle, Joshua had been instructed not to try to cross the road when a vehicle was in view. For reasons which remain unknown, however, Joshua attempted to cross the road when Appellee s vehicle was only 200 feet and two seconds away. These facts are not disputed. Further, as stated by Appellant's own expert and as relied upon by the trial court, even if Appellee had been going the speed limit of 55 m.p.h., at the time Appellant entered into Appellee's lane of travel, Appellee had, at the most, two seconds to react. The testimony offered by Appellant's own expert indicates that Appellee reacted

18 Washington App. No. 14CA12 18 appropriately given the time allotted by braking and swerving to miss Appellant. { 25} Additionally, Appellants expert testified as follows with respect to the weaknesses in Appellants case, as well as the contributing factors and proximate cause of the accident: Q: What did you think the cons were based on your initial scene inspection, whatever thought process you put to it after that point? A: Well, the cons were the ATV pulled out into the path of a northbound vehicle. Q: And he pulled out, based on your reconstruction, at a point that it presented an imminent hazard to himself, did he not? A: Yes. * * * Q: You certainly would agree with me that this four wheeler entering the roadway would be considered a sudden or startling event to a driver? A: Yes, sir. * * *

19 Washington App. No. 14CA12 19 Q: But I think you would agree he did react to this startling event within a reasonable time? A: Yes, sir. Q: And we got sidetracked a little bit. I m saying he did there is evidence he did take evasive action when he perceived this event, which would include steering right and braking, correct? A: Yes, sir. * * * Q: Would you also agree with me there is no indication whatsoever that the minor did anything to try to avoid this accident? A: I don t have any data. Q: That s what I m asking you. Is there any data, is there anything you uncovered in your entire investigation that would lead you to believe the minor did anything to try to avoid this accident? A: No, sir. Q: And in fact, does it not look almost like the minor drove right into the front corner of Mr. Lemon s van? A: That is what happened. * * *

20 Washington App. No. 14CA12 20 Q: * * * Assuming he was going 72 miles an hour, does that mean essentially the minor pulled out about two seconds after or two seconds before the accident and after this vehicle would have been in his line of sight for approximately 4.3 seconds? A: That s approximately correct. * * * Q: Let s get back to your expertise then. Would you certainly agree had the minor looked to his right at whatever speed Mr. Lemon was traveling, he had the ability to see him before he started across State route 7? A: Yes, sir. Q: And would you also agree whether Mr. Lemon was traveling at 72 miles an hour or 62 miles an hour or 55 miles an hour, the minor did not start that movement across the road at the point Mr. Lemon just got into his line of sight? A: True. Q: Give or take, the minor did not start that movement across the road until Mr. Lemon was about two seconds away from the point of impact? A: Somewhere in that neighborhood.

21 Washington App. No. 14CA12 21 Based upon these facts, we cannot conclude that any alleged speeding by Appellee was the proximate cause of Appellant's injuries. As such, we find this case to fall under the uncommon scenario in which it was appropriate for the trial court to determine the issue of proximate cause as a matter of law, rather than submitting it to the jury. { 26} Further, under Ohio's comparative negligence statute, the fact finder apportions the percentage of each party's negligence that proximately caused the plaintiff's damages. R.C A plaintiff may recover where his contributory negligence is equal to or less than the combined negligence of all the defendants. R.C ; Deem v. Columbus Southern Power Co., 4th Dist. Meigs No. 07CA6, 2007-Ohio-4404, 11 (citing former R.C ). { 27} Generally, issues of comparative negligence are for the jury to determine unless the evidence is so compelling that reasonable minds can reach but one conclusion. Id. at 12. While issues of contributory and comparative negligence are typically determined by the trier of fact, "summary judgment may be appropriate under the comparative negligence statute where, after construing the evidence most strongly in plaintiff's favor, a reasonable person could only conclude that plaintiff's negligence was greater than the negligence of defendant." Id.; quoting

22 Washington App. No. 14CA12 22 Scassa v. Dye, 7th Dist. Carroll No. 02CA779, 2003-Ohio-3480, 72; quoting Collier v. Northland Swim Club, 35 Ohio App.3d 35, 39, 518 N.E.2d 1226 (1987). As such, a trial court may grant a defendant summary judgment when the court determines, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff's own negligence outweighed any negligence of the defendant. Deem at 12; citing Gross v. Werling, 3rd Dist. Auglaize No , 1999 WL (Sept. 30, 1999). { 28} As this Court explained in Earles v. Smith, supra, at * 5: [W]eighing the respective negligence of a plaintiff and a defendant is a difficult task and should generally be within the province of a jury. However, if a defendant is not negligent or if the plaintiff's negligence clearly outweighs any negligence of the defendant (i.e. the situation we have here before us in the case sub judice), the granting of a summary judgment is entirely appropriate. { 29} In Deem, supra, we noted that contributory negligence has been defined as any want of ordinary care on the part of the person injured, which combined and concurred with the defendant's negligence and contributed to the injury as a proximate cause thereof, and as an element without which the injury would not have occurred. Deem at 13; quoting

23 Washington App. No. 14CA12 23 Brinkmoeller v. Wilson, 41 Ohio St.2d 223, 226, 325 N.E.2d 233 (1975). [O]ne who has knowledge of a dangerous situation may not disregard it and, if he does so, is chargeable with contributory negligence. Jacques v. Dayton Power & Light Co., 80 Ohio App. 258, 267, 74 N.E.2d 211 (1947). { 30} Here, as we have discussed, Appellant drove his ATV across a public roadway into the path of an oncoming vehicle at a point in which the oncoming vehicle was merely two hundred feet and two seconds away. Although Appellee may have been speeding, and even assuming he was, Appellant s own expert testified that Lemon responded appropriately given the time he had to react to the situation and that Appellant s own actions created an imminent hazard to himself. In light of the foregoing we believe that the evidence reveals that Appellant's negligence far outweighs any negligence on Appellee's part. Thus, reasonable minds can only conclude that Appellant's negligence was greater than Appellee's negligence. Because, as a matter of law, Appellant's contributory negligence exceeds any negligence on Appellee's part, Appellant may not recover. Again, even if we assume that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether Appellee owed Appellant a duty and breached that duty, no genuine issues of material fact remain regarding proximate cause and Appellant's contributory negligence. Therefore, the trial court properly granted summary

1370 West Sixth Street, Suite 350 2859 Aaronwood Avenue, NE, Suite 101 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Massillon, Ohio 44646

1370 West Sixth Street, Suite 350 2859 Aaronwood Avenue, NE, Suite 101 Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Massillon, Ohio 44646 [Cite as Jones v. Interstate Fire and Security Systems, Inc., 2004-Ohio-5475.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT EARL JONES, et al. -vs- Plaintiffs-Appellants INTERSTATE FIRE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO BROOKE B. DEMAREE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee, APPEAL NO. C-090892 TRIAL NO. A-0906987

More information

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. Hon. John F. Boggins, J.

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Hon. Julie A. Edwards, J. Hon. John F. Boggins, J. [Cite as Rudish v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2003-Ohio-1253.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MIKE RUDISH Plaintiff -vs- RICHARD P. JENNINGS Defendant CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANY

More information

[Cite as S & B Installations v. B & L Contractors, Inc., 2004-Ohio-4255.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAWRENCE COUNTY

[Cite as S & B Installations v. B & L Contractors, Inc., 2004-Ohio-4255.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAWRENCE COUNTY [Cite as S & B Installations v. B & L Contractors, Inc., 2004-Ohio-4255.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAWRENCE COUNTY S & B INSTALLATIONS, Plaintiff, Case No. 04CA7 vs. B

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Trial Court No. CI0200503911. Appellee Decided: November 30, 2007 * * * * *

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Trial Court No. CI0200503911. Appellee Decided: November 30, 2007 * * * * * [Cite as Reserve Assoc. Ltd. v. Selective Ins. Co. of South Carolina, 2007-Ohio-6369.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY Reserve Associates Limited Appellant Court of

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Uhl v. McKoski, 2014-Ohio-479.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) VICKIE L. UHL C.A. No. 27066 Appellant v. JOHN MCKOSKI, et al. Appellees

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Bernardini v. Fedor, 2013-Ohio-4633.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) ROBERT BERNARDINI Appellant C.A. No. 12CA0063 v. ROBERT FEDOR, ESQ.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT [Cite as Natl. Collegiate Student Loan Trust v. Hair, 2015-Ohio-832.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT NATIONAL COLLEGIATE STUDENT ) CASE NO. 13 MA 8 LOAN TRUST 2005-2

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY. Trial Court No. 2007-CV-0422. Appellee Decided: October 8, 2010 * * * * *

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY. Trial Court No. 2007-CV-0422. Appellee Decided: October 8, 2010 * * * * * [Cite as Boggia v. Wood Cty. Hosp., 2010-Ohio-4932.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY Mary Boggia, et al. Appellants Court of Appeals No. WD-09-091 Trial Court No. 2007-CV-0422

More information

GLEN A. SMITH DARRELL GILL, D.O., ET AL.

GLEN A. SMITH DARRELL GILL, D.O., ET AL. [Cite as Smith v. Gill, 2010-Ohio-4012.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93985 GLEN A. SMITH PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. DARRELL GILL, D.O.,

More information

526 East Main Street P.O. Box 2385 Alliance, OH 44601 Akron, OH 44309

526 East Main Street P.O. Box 2385 Alliance, OH 44601 Akron, OH 44309 [Cite as Lehrer v. McClure, 2013-Ohio-4690.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT RICHARD LEHRER, ET AL Plaintiffs-Appellees -vs- RALPH MCCLURE, ET AL Defendant-Appellant JUDGES

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Varner v. Ford Motor Co., 2007-Ohio-2640.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 88390 YVONNE VARNER, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

More information

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as Meyers Lake Sportsman's Club, Inc. v. Auto-Owners (Mut.) Ins. Co., 2013-Ohio-3115.] COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MEYERS LAKE SPORTSMAN'S CLUB, JUDGES INC., ET Al

More information

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiffs, : Case No. 09 CV 1638

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiffs, : Case No. 09 CV 1638 IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO KARYN NEIHAUS, : Plaintiffs, : Case No. 09 CV 1638 v. : Judge Berens SHIRLEY FINLEY, ET AL., : JUDGMENT ENTRY Overruling motions for summary judgment

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:12-CV-148 (HL) ORDER

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION. Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 7:12-CV-148 (HL) ORDER Case 7:12-cv-00148-HL Document 43 Filed 11/07/13 Page 1 of 11 CHRISTY LYNN WATFORD, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION v. Plaintiff, Civil Action No.

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Cleveland v. Tisdale, 2015-Ohio-1017.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101376 CITY OF CLEVELAND PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. VENIS

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY. Appellants Trial Court No. 2007 CV 0862. Appellee Decided: August 27, 2010

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY. Appellants Trial Court No. 2007 CV 0862. Appellee Decided: August 27, 2010 [Cite as Davis v. Firelands Reg. Med. Ctr., 2010-Ohio-4051.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY David E. Davis, et al. Court of Appeals No. E-10-013 Appellants Trial Court

More information

COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as Debt Recovery Solutions of Ohio, Inc. v. Lash, 2009-Ohio-6205.] COURT OF APPEALS ASHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DEBT RECOVERY SOLUTIONS OF OHIO, INC. -vs- Plaintiff-Appellee JEFFREY

More information

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as Midland Funding, L.L.C. v. Snedeker, 2014-Ohio-887.] COURT OF APPEALS LICKING COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC DBA JUDGES MIDLAND FUNDING DE LLC Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J.

More information

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiffs, : Case No. 10 CV 761

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiffs, : Case No. 10 CV 761 IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO DIANA SIGMAN, : Plaintiffs, : Case No. 10 CV 761 v. : Judge Berens NELSON E. GENSHAFT, ET AL., : ENTRY Overruling Motion for Summary Judgment Defendants.

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION JASON LONG, Plaintiff, v. NO. 0:00-CV-000 ABC THE CHABON GROUP, INC., Defendant. DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

More information

RISA DUNN-HALPERN MAC HOME INSPECTORS, INC., ET AL.

RISA DUNN-HALPERN MAC HOME INSPECTORS, INC., ET AL. [Cite as Dunn-Halpern v. MAC Home Inspectors, Inc., 2007-Ohio-1853.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 88337 RISA DUNN-HALPERN PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

More information

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the

Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the ****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 12AP-575 v. : (C.P.C. No. 10CVH-02-3107)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 12AP-575 v. : (C.P.C. No. 10CVH-02-3107) [Cite as Allied Roofing, Inc. v. W. Res. Group, 2013-Ohio-1637.] Allied Roofing, Inc., : IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 12AP-575 v. : (C.P.C. No. 10CVH-02-3107)

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 12-107 ************

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 12-107 ************ STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 12-107 THELMA M. HODGES AND MARCUS J. McCOY VERSUS MICHAEL A. TAYLOR ************ APPEAL FROM THE THIRTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF JEFFERSON

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Viscomi v. Viscomi, 2012-Ohio-5721.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98405 JEFFREY VISCOMI PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. TAMARA VISCOMI

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Macklin v. Citimortgage, Inc., 2015-Ohio-97.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101077 STEPHEN M. MACKLIN, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

More information

Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #:

Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageid> Case: 2:04-cv-01110-JLG-NMK Doc #: 33 Filed: 06/13/05 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION ALVIN E. WISEMAN, Plaintiff,

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Hignite v. Glick, Layman & Assoc., Inc., 2011-Ohio-1698.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 95782 DIANNE HIGNITE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Nageotte v. Boston Mills Brandywine Ski Resort, 2012-Ohio-6102.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) MEGAN NAGEOTTE C.A. No. 26563 Appellee

More information

COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT [Cite as Trunzo v. Debt Recovery Solutions of Ohio, Inc., 2012-Ohio-6078.] COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT TERRY L. AND CAROL S. TRUNZO -vs- Plaintiffs-Appellants DEBT RECOVERY

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 2010 CA 53. v. : T.C. NO. 07CV213

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO. Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 2010 CA 53. v. : T.C. NO. 07CV213 [Cite as Stanley v. Community Hosp., 2011-Ohio-1290.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR CLARK COUNTY, OHIO GEORGE STANLEY, et al. : Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. CASE NO. 2010 CA 53 v. : T.C. NO. 07CV213 COMMUNITY

More information

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COMMON PLEAS COURT OF FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO DEUTCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, AS TRUSTEE FOR SOUNDVIEW HOME LOAN TRUST 2005-OPTI, ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005-OPTI, Plaintiff, : Case

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: DAVID L. TAYLOR THOMAS R. HALEY III Jennings Taylor Wheeler & Haley P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: DOUGLAS D. SMALL Foley & Small South Bend, Indiana

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY. v. CASE NO. 1-14-17 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, O P I N I O N

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY. v. CASE NO. 1-14-17 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT, O P I N I O N [Cite as Motorist Life Ins. Co. v. Sherbourne, 2014-Ohio-5205.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT ALLEN COUNTY MOTORISTS LIFE INS. CO., PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, v. CASE NO. 1-14-17 PATRICIA

More information

Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Case 1:07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB Document 51 Filed 08/21/2008 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 07-cv-00389-MJW-BNB ERNA GANSER, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO ELAINE WILLIAMS and GEORGE W. REYNOLDS, vs. Plaintiffs-Appellants, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO TINA R. SAID (Deceased), and STEVEN M. SAID (Widower/Claimant), Plaintiffs-Appellees/Cross- Appellants, vs. ADMINISTRATOR,

More information

[Cite as Finkovich v. State Auto Ins. Cos., 2004-Ohio-1123.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT AND OPINION

[Cite as Finkovich v. State Auto Ins. Cos., 2004-Ohio-1123.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT AND OPINION [Cite as Finkovich v. State Auto Ins. Cos., 2004-Ohio-1123.] COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 83125 JOYCE L. FINKOVICH, Plaintiff-appellant vs. STATE AUTO INSURANCE COMPANIES,

More information

SAMUEL D. HOFFMEYER. Plaintiff OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION. Defendant Case No. 2009-05021

SAMUEL D. HOFFMEYER. Plaintiff OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION. Defendant Case No. 2009-05021 [Cite as Hoffmeyer v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2010-Ohio-1529.] Court of Claims of Ohio The Ohio Judicial Center 65 South Front Street, Third Floor Columbus, OH 43215 614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) [Cite as Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Dvorak, 2014-Ohio-4652.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, as Trustee

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 15-08-05

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 15-08-05 [Cite as Carter-Jones Lumber Co. v. Jewell, 2008-Ohio-4782.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT VAN WERT COUNTY THE CARTER-JONES LUMBER CO., dba CARTER LUMBER CO., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY. Trial Court No. 01-CV-522. Appellees Decided: August 8, 2003 * * * * * * * * * *

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY. Trial Court No. 01-CV-522. Appellees Decided: August 8, 2003 * * * * * * * * * * [Cite as Heban v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 2003-Ohio-4218.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT WOOD COUNTY Michael N. Heban Appellant Court of Appeals No. WD-02-064 Trial Court No. 01-CV-522

More information

Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J.

Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. Present: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, Koontz, Kinser, Lemons, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico, S.J. WILLIAM P. RASCHER OPINION BY v. Record No. 090193 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. February 25, 2010 CATHLEEN

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Ford Motor Credit Co., L.L.C. v. Collins, 2014-Ohio-5152.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101405 FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY,

More information

[Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.]

[Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.] [Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d 299, 2008-Ohio-2336.] ROGERS v. CITY OF DAYTON ET AL., APPELLEES; STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., APPELLANT. [Cite as Rogers v. Dayton, 118 Ohio St.3d

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY [Cite as Peterson v. Amigo Mobility Internatl., Inc., 2013-Ohio-3933.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY DELLA MAE PETERSON : Appellate Case No. 25604 : Plaintiff-Appellant

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as DeJohn v. DiCello, 2011-Ohio-471.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94785 TIMOTHY DEJOHN, ET AL. vs. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS/ CROSS-APPELLEES

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Bartlett v. Redford, 2012-Ohio-2775.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 97606 DIANE BARTLETT PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. LANA REDFORD,

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Jones v. Masters, 2015-Ohio-993.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) CARL JONES C.A. No. 27000 Appellant v. JOHN MASTERS, et al. Appellees

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as Dunn v. State Auto. Mut. Ins., 2013-Ohio-4758.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) COLUMBUS E. DUNN Appellant C.A. No. 12CA010332 v. STATE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2004-CA-01391-COA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2004-CA-01391-COA IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2004-CA-01391-COA PEGGY HUDSON FISHER APPELLANT v. WILLIAM DEER, GANNETT MS CORP. AND GANNETT RIVER STATES PUBLISHING CORP. D/B/A THE HATTIESBURG

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION STEVEN MORRIS, individually, as surviving spouse of Patricia Morris, deceased, and as the Administrator of the Estate

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Brown v. Carlton Harley-Davidson, Inc., 2013-Ohio-4047.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 99761 BRUCE ANDREW BROWN, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Trial Court No. CI07-2623. Appellees Decided: August 22, 2008 * * * * *

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Trial Court No. CI07-2623. Appellees Decided: August 22, 2008 * * * * * [Cite as TLC Health Care Servs., L.L.C. v. Enhanced Billing Servs., L.L.C., 2008-Ohio-4285.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY TLC Health Care Services, LLC dba TLC

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KAREN JORDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED August 19, 2014 v No. 316125 Wayne Circuit Court INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE OF LC No. 12-015537-NF PENNSYLVANIA Defendant-Appellee.

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 LUZ RIVERA AND ABRIANNA RIVERA Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. RONALD MANZI Appellee No. 948 EDA 2015 Appeal from the Order

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Rutledge v. Ohio Dept. of Ins., 2006-Ohio-5013.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 87372 DARWIN C. RUTLEDGE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT

More information

2015 IL App (1st) 150714-U. No. 1-15-0714 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

2015 IL App (1st) 150714-U. No. 1-15-0714 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT 2015 IL App (1st) 150714-U SIXTH DIVISION September 30, 2015 No. 1-15-0714 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited

More information

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 03-CV-1445. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-3748-02)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 03-CV-1445. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-3748-02) Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 09AP-1056 v. : (C.C. No. 2006-05551)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 09AP-1056 v. : (C.C. No. 2006-05551) [Cite as Roberts v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2010-Ohio-5207.] Juan Roberts, : IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 09AP-1056 v. : (C.C. No. 2006-05551)

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GARY WEIS and HEIDI WEIS, Personal UNPUBLISHED Representatives of the Estate of KATIE WEIS, September 16, 2008 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 279821 Branch Circuit Court

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Acuity v. Decker, 2015 IL App (2d) 150192 Appellate Court Caption ACUITY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DONALD DECKER, Defendant- Appellee (Groot Industries, Inc., Defendant).

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS )SS:

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS )SS: STATE OF OHIO IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS SS: CUYAHOGA COUNTY CASE NO. CV-484139 THE OAKWOOD CLUB Plaintiff vs. OPINION AND ORDER KINNEY GOLF COURSE DESIGN, ET AL Defendants MICHAEL J. RUSSO, JUDGE: This

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO. Civil Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 10 CV 000508.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO. Civil Appeal from the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 10 CV 000508. [Cite as Brymer v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 2011-Ohio-4022.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LAKE COUNTY, OHIO JENNIFER BRYMER, : O P I N I O N Plaintiff-Appellant, : - vs - : GIANT EAGLE,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. v. Untisz, 2013-Ohio-993.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT GEAUGA COUNTY, OHIO BAC HOME LOANS SERVICING, LP, f.k.a. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS SERVICING,

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION JAMES D. FOWLER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 08-cv-2785 ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) Judge Robert M. Dow,

More information

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. JOHN MACARTNEY, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, NEW JERSEY TRANSIT RAIL OPERATIONS,

More information

CITY OF CLEVELAND LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1099

CITY OF CLEVELAND LABORERS INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 1099 [Cite as Cleveland v. Laborers Internatl. Union Local 1099, 2009-Ohio-6313.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 92983 CITY OF CLEVELAND

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO ADRIAN LEMUS-SANCHEZ, vs. Plaintiff-Appellant, FAYETTE DRYWALL, INC., and Defendant, JENNIE K. VALDEZ, and ADMINISTRATOR,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY : : : : : : : : : : :... O P I N I O N

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY : : : : : : : : : : :... O P I N I O N [Cite as Cox v. Oliver, 2016-Ohio-4575.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY GEORGIA B. COX Plaintiff-Appellant v. KIMBERLY OLIVER, et al. Defendants-Appellees...........

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO [Cite as Montgomery Cty. v. Deters, 2015-Ohio-1507.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO MONTGOMERY COUNTY, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ERIC C. DETERS, ERIC C. DETERS

More information

Case 1:13-cv-00796-RPM Document 23 Filed 02/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9

Case 1:13-cv-00796-RPM Document 23 Filed 02/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Case 1:13-cv-00796-RPM Document 23 Filed 02/18/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 9 Civil Action No. 13-cv-00796-RPM MICHAEL DAY KEENEY, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Senior

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: MICHAEL A. MINGLIN Miller & Minglin, P.C. Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JAMES W. ROEHRDANZ ERIC D. JOHNSON Kightlinger & Gray, LLP Indianapolis,

More information

2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT

2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT NOTICE Decision filed 05/03/12. The text of this decision may be changed or corrected prior to the filing of a Petition for Rehearing or the disposition of the same. 2012 IL App (5th) 100579-U NO. 5-10-0579

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 08AP-609 v. : (C.C. No. 2008-02240)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 08AP-609 v. : (C.C. No. 2008-02240) [Cite as DiNozzi v. Ohio State Dental Bd., 2009-Ohio-1376.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Anthony DiNozzi, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 08AP-609 v. : (C.C. No. 2008-02240) Ohio

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Trial Court No. CI0200806248. Appellant Decided: April 9, 2010 * * * * *

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY. Trial Court No. CI0200806248. Appellant Decided: April 9, 2010 * * * * * [Cite as Heuring v. Meijer, Inc., 2010-Ohio-1598.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY Martin A. Heuring Appellee Court of Appeals No. L-09-1243 Trial Court No. CI0200806248

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 07AP-603 v. : (C.P.C. No. 06DR03-1051)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 07AP-603 v. : (C.P.C. No. 06DR03-1051) [Cite as Howard v. Lawton, 2008-Ohio-767.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Katherine S. Howard, : Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 07AP-603 v. : (C.P.C. No. 06DR03-1051) Norman H. Lawton,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Theodore K. Marok, III, :

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Theodore K. Marok, III, : [Cite as Marok v. Ohio State Univ., 2008-Ohio-3170.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Theodore K. Marok, III, : Plaintiff-Appellant, : No. 07AP-921 (C.C. No. 2006-06736) v. : (REGULAR

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Brannon v. Buehrer, 2013-Ohio-700.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 98711 HERBERT BRANNON, JR. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. STEVE

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 13-893 STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT **********

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 13-893 STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT ********** STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 13-893 WENDY THIBODEAUX VERSUS STATE OF LOUISIANA, THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT ********** APPEAL FROM THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral

More information

HARVEY SALKIN CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

HARVEY SALKIN CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY [Cite as Salkin v. Case W. Res. Univ., 2007-Ohio-1139.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 88041 HARVEY SALKIN PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. CASE

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES HENDRICK, v Plaintiff-Appellant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED May 24, 2007 No. 275318 Montcalm Circuit Court LC No. 06-007975-NI

More information

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT AGNES MCALLEN, ET AL., ) ) PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, ) ) CASE NO. 99 C.A. 159 VS. ) ) O P I N I O N AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE, ) ET

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Lane v. Greater Cleveland R.T.A., 2014-Ohio-3917.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 100829 SHI DEA LANE PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO BROOKS J. SPRADLIN-CHEEKS, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. DAVID B. SCHWARTZ, M.D., and DAVID B. SCHWARTZ, M.D., LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-01200-COA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-01200-COA IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2013-CA-01200-COA HARVEY HALEY APPELLANT v. ANNA JURGENSON, AGELESS REMEDIES FRANCHISING, LLC, AGELESS REMEDIES MEDICAL SKINCARE AND APOTHECARY AND

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY [Cite as Joyce v. Rough, 2009-Ohio-5731.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY Rosemary S. Joyce, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Edward M. Joyce Court

More information

Court of Appeals of Ohio

Court of Appeals of Ohio [Cite as Klamert v. Cleveland, 186 Ohio App.3d 268, 2010-Ohio-443.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 93541 KLAMERT, APPELLANT, v. CITY

More information

No. 1-10-0602 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

No. 1-10-0602 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT SECOND DIVISION May 31, 2011 No. 1-10-0602 Notice: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: KIRK A. HORN Mandel Pollack & Horn, P.C. Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Enterprise Leasing Company of Indianapolis, Inc.: MICHAEL E. SIMMONS CARL M. CHITTENDEN

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. CYNTHIA M. FOX : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellee :

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO. CYNTHIA M. FOX : (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court) Defendant-Appellee : [Cite as Indiana Ins. Co. v. Fox, 2005-Ohio-1040.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR MONTGOMERY COUNTY, OHIO INDIANA INSURANCE COMPANY : Plaintiff-Appellant : C.A. Case No. 20638 v. : T.C. Case No. 04-CV-1752

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.

COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, DEFENDANTS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS. 2001 WI App 12 COURT OF APPEALS OF WISCONSIN PUBLISHED OPINION Case No.: 00-0950 Complete Title of Case: ALICIA DANIELSON, V. PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, ANDREA H. GASPER, ABC INSURANCE COMPANY, AND WISCONSIN

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-CT-01470-SCT ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-CT-01470-SCT ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI CHARLIE HONEYCUTT v. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2010-CT-01470-SCT TOMMY COLEMAN, ATLANTA CASUALTY COMPANIES, ATLANTA CASUALTY COMPANY AND AMERICAN PREMIER INSURANCE COMPANY ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Appellant-Appellant, : No. 13AP-622 v. : (C.P.C. No. 13CVF-1688)

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT. Appellant-Appellant, : No. 13AP-622 v. : (C.P.C. No. 13CVF-1688) [Cite as Campus Pitt Stop, L.L.C., v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 2014-Ohio-227.] Campus Pitt Stop, L.L.C., : IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT Appellant-Appellant, : No. 13AP-622

More information

2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION 2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES PERKINS, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION July 18, 2013 9:00 a.m. v No. 310473 Grand Traverse Circuit Court AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, LC No. 2011-028699-NF

More information

EVIDENCE AND PRACTICE TIPS

EVIDENCE AND PRACTICE TIPS EVIDENCE AND PRACTICE TIPS By: Stephen J. Heine Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, Peoria The Laws of Intestate Succession Permit Only Descendants to Share in the Proceeds of a Wrongful Death Suit Where the

More information